Marin County Civil Grand Jury: Library spending lacks oversight

Oversight of an annual $2.5 million Marin County library tax fund has been ineffective, with a "lack of involvement" from a watchdog panel that operates in the dark compounded by a fragmented budget that makes expenses difficult to track, Marin's civil grand jury asserted.

The county Library Commission, appointed by county supervisors in 2010 as the independent panel voters were promised would audit Marin's $49-a-year Measure A parcel tax, has done little to fulfill its oversight role, with "input ... limited to twice yearly reports from the library administration," the jury concluded.

Further, "expenditures of Measure A funds are difficult to track," the jury observed, noting that the administration has failed to provide either a separate line-item budget of special tax fund expenditures or an overall program outlining "planning, budgeting and scheduling" of future improvements.

"Line items for Measure A expenditures are not in the Marin County Library budget," the jury said. "Income from Measure A is displayed as a lump sum. The outflow seems to cover the entire budget deficit."

The Marin County Free Library includes branches in Bolinas, the Marin Civic Center, Corte Madera, Fairfax, Inverness, Marin City, Novato, Point Reyes Station and Stinson Beach. A renovation project in the main Novato branch this spring launched a systemwide remodeling program using Measure A revenue.

But instead of a coherent blueprint for Measure A spending, the jury said it found information, details, budgets and schedules scattered "in various places and in various controls," making tracking funding difficult. The situation prevents the commission, serving as the Measure A Oversight Committee, from an ability to see "the whole picture, track progress and extend the support it is tasked to provide."

Making matters worse, jurors indicated the commission has neither bark nor bite, saying commissioners listened to administration reports at monthly meetings but "had virtually no discussion or dialogue on substantive issues" and "gave no feedback, offered no opinions and had no open discussions of issues."

When serving twice a year as the tax oversight committee, the commission gets an update "by way of presentations" from the library administration, but does not provide "input, discussion or direction," the jury reported.

"The Library Commission's input on Measure A has been limited to twice-yearly reports from the library administration," the jury said, adding the panel's "apparent lack of involvement leaves an unfilled gap in what should be proactive support."

The jury, citing "insufficient long-range library facility and services planning," noted an Independent Journal report about a 50 percent cost overrun for last-minute planning work, bringing a consultant tab to $250,000 for the design of a library lobby remodeling project. The tab soared when library officials changed their minds in midstream about what needed to be done.

Library Commissioner Cal Kurzman, in a recent letter to other commissioners, also cited the newspaper report, saying the oversight committee "was left completely out of the loop" on the matter. Another news report, he added, indicated the county dipped into Measure A funds to cover pay and benefits for a $170,000-a-year employee it shifted from the personnel department to the library staff.

"My concern is the decision-making process," he said. "The Oversight Committee has not been receiving the basic information it requires in order to assure the voters of Marin County that their tax dollars are being effectively spent."

Kurzman said the Measure A Oversight Committee has met just three times, once for a session that lasted nine minutes, another for a session that lasted 12 minutes and a third that went on for 64 minutes.

Communication and collaboration or the lack of it were at the center of a number of other jury complaints as well.

Several commissioners told jurors they had never met with the supervisors who had appointed them. "It is apparent ... that the Library Commission and the Board of Supervisors do not have an ongoing dialogue, and that the Library Commission is not empowered to recommend solutions to the many long-lasting problems," the jury said.

Library staffers complained about top-down management, saying they were not consulted about restructuring library operations and programs, and several balked about hiring consultants to prepare studies when "little input was solicited from staff who had considerable day-to-day experience to offer," the jury said. Staffers expressed "hesitation and dismay" at shuffling library responsibilities in a new "single point of service" program that merges reference and circulation desks.

Jury findings seemed to reflect a county survey two years ago that indicated 69 percent of county library employees responding lacked confidence in senior management.

Scott Bauer, acting head of the library system after the retirement of Librarian Gail Haar, said he needs to reflect on the jury report, but added some jury findings are "spot on," and others already are being addressed. Overall, it appears the jury took "a very good look" at library operations, he said, adding the report will be discussed when the Library Commission meets at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Inverness Library at 15 Park Ave.

Judy Arnold, president of the Board of Supervisors, noted that change is in the works at the county library.

Carson City Librarian Sara Jones, Nevada's "co-librarian of the year" last year, takes over as head of the Marin library system on July 8.

Jones should "make improved communication a priority," the jury concluded.